Separation of church and state

[RabidAlpaca]

There you go again, show me where I said the state should endorse it.

Ok, here:

First off, who is YOU? Second, there's two sides to that coin. Conveniently forgotten is the right to PRACTICE religion, spelled out in the same amendment. Too often in this day and age people are stopped from practicing under the guise of separation of church and state. Students having a prayer in school does not make prayer a law.

You said people are stopped from practicing their religion in school, yet the only thing that's not allowed is disrupting class with a prayer or have the school endorse a religion. So clearly the fact that the school can't push a religion on the kids bothers you.

 

[American]

Ok, here:



You said people are stopped from practicing their religion in school, yet the only thing that's not allowed is disrupting class with a prayer or have the school endorse a religion. So clearly the fact that the school can't push a religion on the kids bothers you.

You're lying. Total bull****.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You're lying. Total bull****.

Well, I have no idea what you're upset about then, because teachers forcing religion on kids, or kids hijacking class to push their religion are the only two things that aren't allowed in school. But I guess it's more fun to cry about your "we're not allowed to pray in school because we're christians!" narrative.

 

[American]

Well, I have no idea what you're upset about then, because teachers forcing religion on kids, or kids hijacking class to push their religion are the only two things that aren't allowed in school. But I guess it's more fun to cry about your "we're not allowed to pray in school because we're christians!" narrative.

Just because you're an atheist and hate religion, doesn't mean you get to make up **** about what people are thinking. You also don't get to decide the conversation by throwing out extreme situations as fact.

 

[RGacky3]

Just because you're an atheist and hate religion, doesn't mean you get to make up **** about what people are thinking. You also don't get to decide the conversation by throwing out extreme situations as fact.

Everything that you propose ... Would you be ok with Muslims doing the same?

 

[American]

Everything that you propose ... Would you be ok with Muslims doing the same?

First of all, I proposed nothing. Secondly, they have a right to practice their religion. And most likely, if they were accommodated, you wouldn't say a goddam thing.

 

[RGacky3]

First of all, I proposed nothing. Secondly, they have a right to practice their religion. And most likely, if they were accommodated, you wouldn't say a goddam thing.

If there were islamic prayers before class that the school itself set up .... yes I would.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Just because you're an atheist and hate religion, doesn't mean you get to make up **** about what people are thinking. You also don't get to decide the conversation by throwing out extreme situations as fact.

I've stated this over and over again and you refuse to address my point, so I'll do it a third time:

THE ONLY THING YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO WITH YOUR RELIGION IN SCHOOL IS DISRUPT CLASS WITH IT, OR TEACH ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER.

You complained that everyone is stopping christians from practicing their religion, when in reality nobody is doing anything even remotely like that. It's absolute bull****. So what other conclusions do I have to pick from other than you're either insanely misinformed, or are pissed that you can't force your religion on school children?

First of all, I proposed nothing. Secondly, they have a right to practice their religion. And most likely, if they were accommodated, you wouldn't say a goddam thing.

No, we would all say something if they were accomodated. NO RELIGION gets preferential treatment in schools. For some reason you're finding that super hard to understand.

 

[American]

I've stated this over and over again and you refuse to address my point, so I'll do it a third time:

THE ONLY THING YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO WITH YOUR RELIGION IN SCHOOL IS DISRUPT CLASS WITH IT, OR TEACH ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER.

You complained that everyone is stopping christians from practicing their religion, when in reality nobody is doing anything even remotely like that. It's absolute bull****. So what other conclusions do I have to pick from other than you're either insanely misinformed, or are pissed that you can't force your religion on school children?



No, we would all say something if they were accomodated. NO RELIGION gets preferential treatment in schools. For some reason you're finding that super hard to understand.

No one was talking about TEACHING or FORCING religion except you. I said practice. No one said anything about disrupting that class.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

No one was talking about TEACHING or FORCING religion except you. I said practice. No one said anything about disrupting that class.

Good, then you should have ZERO problems with the way schools are currently run. Because NOBODY is preventing ANYBODY from practicing their religion, even on school grounds.

I guess you just misspoke earlier.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Why art Christians so stupid that they cannot just pray without having to talk out loud? Seriously praying is supposed to be personal between god and the person praying,
hell you dont even need to open your mouth. You dont need to move your lips to read or need to read out loud either.


Out of respect when praying one needs to look at where they are. In a church its open season. In your home its open season. Anywhere where your praying out loud wont disturb other people its open season. Where praying out load will disturb people put a cork in it. But rest assured that there isnt anywhere in this country that you cannot pray. Even in public schools. You can also read religious books anywhere you want as well. But in public schools you have to do it at the appropriate time, not while the student is supposed to be working.

Christians just keep listening to their religious leaders who drum up BS untruths and it doesnt make their religion look any good.

 

[Visbek]

Yet, specifically, the Constitution does not exclude religion from the public square....

Individuals are not barred from practicing their religions, or expressing their religious beliefs, in public areas.

For example, anyone can stand on the corner of Times Square and preach, or proselytize their religion. Similarly, any religious organization can hold services in national parks. The Grand Canyon lists a typical example: Religious Services - Grand Canyon National Park

What is not allowed is much more specific. For example, a judge cannot display the 10 Commandments in his or her courtroom, as that suggests that religion has some role to play in the secular, government-run process of the legal proceedings. Or, the government cannot construct a massive cross on top of Mount McKinley.

This is not always implemented perfectly, and it's a dynamic process. Our ideas and perceptions change, and contingencies can impact whether a specific object is or is not classified as "endorsing religion" and/or has secular significance.

Changing the Constitution to add that "there will be a separation of church and state" will not, in fact, have any practical effects -- especially as those who do assert that the state ought to support a religion will reject it outright. Merely putting words into the Constitution will not bestow such magic to make those opposed to the idea suddenly accept it. We see this every day, with people willing to ignore due process whenever a crime strikes them as particularly offensive, or willing to have the government censor speech that they regard as objectionable.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Individuals are not barred from practicing their religions, or expressing their religious beliefs, in public areas.

For example, anyone can stand on the corner of Times Square and preach, or proselytize their religion. Similarly, any religious organization can hold services in national parks. The Grand Canyon lists a typical example: Religious Services - Grand Canyon National Park

What is not allowed is much more specific. For example, a judge cannot display the 10 Commandments in his or her courtroom, as that suggests that religion has some role to play in the secular, government-run process of the legal proceedings. Or, the government cannot construct a massive cross on top of Mount McKinley.

This is not always implemented perfectly, and it's a dynamic process. Our ideas and perceptions change, and contingencies can impact whether a specific object is or is not classified as "endorsing religion" and/or has secular significance.

Changing the Constitution to add that "there will be a separation of church and state" will not, in fact, have any practical effects -- especially as those who do assert that the state ought to support a religion will reject it outright. Merely putting words into the Constitution will not bestow such magic to make those opposed to the idea suddenly accept it. We see this every day, with people willing to ignore due process whenever a crime strikes them as particularly offensive, or willing to have the government censor speech that they regard as objectionable.

The Constitution says nothing about a separation of Church and state, and while it may be to your liking, there is no basis upon which you could consider it Constitutional to ban, for instance, a nativity scene on public property. Christmas [ and again, I am not a Christian, have not participated in Christmas since 5th grade] is a national, I will go so far as to say a Federal, holiday. It is a part of our heritage, something people enjoy, the majority being Christian in their beliefs, and it is interwoven into the tapestry of our nation's history. Should a nativity scene be banned? No. This is no more an establishment of religion than if a Buddhist statue were to be temporarily, or even permanently, displayed on the grounds of the Washington monument.....that would not establish that the Washington Monument as being suddenly Buddhist...and nobody in their right mind should be offended or think that the government was/is trying to impose Buddhism on all the people...I mean it is rather silly, anyone sensible would be intellectually dishonest to disagree.

There should be no reason, for instance, for people to be fearful of expressing their faith openly in school settings. In classrooms students should not be discouraged from putting forth their own opinions about whether, as our textbooks say, man is related to, descended from and/or derives from other species... especially when this cannot and, under rigorous scientific method, is not even close to being near proven as fact. So, those who believe otherwise should be allowed the full ability to counter that, to express what they actually believe...yet currently there is a cloud of apprehension that students and teachers have in possibly doing so... government does not have the right to suppress what individuals really think. I would agree that no religion should be proselytized, but defense of faith should specifically be allowed. I would say that atheism, the absence of a belief, should not be the single thing allowed to fill that vacuum where faith has not been allowed. That is doing a great disservice to our children and our fellow citizens.

And specifically, why cannot/should not the Ten Commandments be displayed... many of our laws are indirectly based on this, as well as other religious universality of these tenets, they not necessarily solely of the Christo/Judeo beliefs...it is definitely a part of our history/heritage...why should we closet these, hide them as if they are not there, as if they were not there ever... omission of parts of the truth is a form of lying...is it not?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yet, specifically, the Constitution does not exclude religion from the public square as we have seemed to have accomplished through persistent assaults made upon it. We have a general concept of that religion, having many denominations, that has been, proudly, a part of our heritage and should not have to been hidden away, put in the closet so to speak. That is not my religion but I understand it as part of our history, our common overwhelming predominant belief in the existence of a higher guiding power, and we should not be forced to ignore that... that would infringe upon the free exercise thereof.

And that is whether we like it or not, or think it would open up a can of worms or not... if one wants to change that, Amend the Constitution.

In other words, you has a sad that you can't better impose your beliefs on others

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

In other words, you has a sad that you can't better impose your beliefs on others

Hard to truly make much sense of what you are trying to say there..." you has a sad.."??? But I would say you might need to go back and read my post...I really have no beliefs to impose other than what we are talking about, the Constitution and what it says and meant. If you mean I think our Constitution should be adhered to, yes, unequivocally yes.

But do try to make yourself a bit more understandable, hard to debate without a translator of what that actually meant to signify.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Meh, who cares. The practical benefits of the doctrine are of far more worth than any level of logical purity in some minds.

But that's philosophy. It can be used to justify anything with the right premise.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The Constitution says nothing about a separation of Church and state, and while it may be to your liking, there is no basis upon which you could consider it Constitutional to ban, for instance, a nativity scene on public property. Christmas [ and again, I am not a Christian, have not participated in Christmas since 5th grade] is a national, I will go so far as to say a Federal, holiday. It is a part of our heritage, something people enjoy, the majority being Christian in their beliefs, and it is interwoven into the tapestry of our nation's history. Should a nativity scene be banned? No. This is no more an establishment of religion than if a Buddhist statue were to be temporarily, or even permanently, displayed on the grounds of the Washington monument.....that would not establish that the Washington Monument as being suddenly Buddhist...and nobody in their right mind should be offended or think that the government was/is trying to impose Buddhism on all the people...I mean it is rather silly, anyone sensible would be intellectually dishonest to disagree.

It is logical that someone can build and house an object and not necessarily be forcing it on anyone. But then there isnt a Buddhist bloc in our government trying to gain control. The Christian right isnt what one would call benign. They make assertions that insist that only Christians are true Americans and other highly offensive positions. When they want a statue in the national square they want it because they do want to force religion down peoples throats. That is also why the nativity scene shows up in parks. Christians think that they own Christmas and thats that. They cant be happy with anyone else celebrating what they consider their holidays. They are not very good with tolerance. Its either their way or the highway.

There should be no reason, for instance, for people to be fearful of expressing their faith openly in school settings. In classrooms students should not be discouraged from putting forth their own opinions about whether, as our textbooks say, man is related to, descended from and/or derives from other species... especially when this cannot and, under rigorous scientific method, is not even close to being near proven as fact. So, those who believe otherwise should be allowed the full ability to counter that, to express what they actually believe...yet currently there is a cloud of apprehension that students and teachers have in possibly doing so... government does not have the right to suppress what individuals really think. I would agree that no religion should be proselytized, but defense of faith should specifically be allowed. I would say that atheism, the absence of a belief, should not be the single thing allowed to fill that vacuum where faith has not been allowed. That is doing a great disservice to our children and our fellow citizens.

The main reason why religion has become a issue in public schools is because Christians were abusing students that are not Christian. That is why Atheists bring lawsuits to right a wrong. Of course Christians are told in church that atheists are out to get them. Church leaders linked with the Christian Right pump their followers with crap about atheists being all commies and **** like that.

And the government does not suppress what people think. I always laugh at that lie because you obviously and millions of Christians etc etc in America seem to be able to think what they want with no problem at all.

Another funny lie is when creationists try to say that evolution has no evidence. That one only goes to show that creationists have no clue what they are talking about.
I bet next you will go on about the word theory. Go ahead I will just roll my eyes and feel sorry for that failed argument. Seriously creationism and evolution are not equally valid "theories". Stop just stop beating that long dead horse that has been shown too many times to be just plan ignorant.

And specifically, why cannot/should not the Ten Commandments be displayed... many of our laws are indirectly based on this, as well as other religious universality of these tenets, they not necessarily solely of the Christo/Judeo beliefs...it is definitely a part of our history/heritage...why should we closet these, hide them as if they are not there, as if they were not there ever... omission of parts of the truth is a form of lying...is it not?

Our laws are not indirectly based on the ten commandments. That one is almost just as ignorant as the theory argument. I mean really murder is illegal because its murder not because the bible said the same thing. The ten commandments after all mostly deals with the religious aspect things like dont kill and what not come after them. that first commandment about not worshiping any other gods is highly offence to other religions. And 5 through 10 are hypocritical considering the things that god did in the old testament. If our laws are based on the ten commandments then that wouldnt be something to be proud of. best just let that one slide.

But really your parroting of Sunday mass or whichever church it is that you go to just proves why religion must be left out of the equation, when it comes to government. But no, Americans are not being denied their beliefs. America is full of many religious people. Religious freedom is alive and well in this country I am proud to say.

The completely comical part is that you were able to list your grievances and not one government official is going to ever contact you about them or do something to you because of them.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Hard to truly make much sense of what you are trying to say there..." you has a sad.."??? But I would say you might need to go back and read my post...I really have no beliefs to impose other than what we are talking about, the Constitution and what it says and meant. If you mean I think our Constitution should be adhered to, yes, unequivocally yes.

But do try to make yourself a bit more understandable, hard to debate without a translator of what that actually meant to signify.

i found his easy to understand. Whats your problem? Was that the only argument that you could muster?

 

[American]

That's not actually true, it happens rarely and isn't hard to correct but when it does happen right-wing Christians scream like toddlers with a skinned knee, a thin skinned knee, and that's why you believe so. Between the right-wing Christian watch groups and the ACLU things get worked out.

Grow up.

 

[Visbek]

The Constitution says nothing about a separation of Church and state, and while it may be to your liking, there is no basis upon which you could consider it Constitutional to ban, for instance, a nativity scene on public property.

Yes, there is, and clearly so. Setting up the nativity scene qualifies as an "establishment of a state religion."

Christmas is a national, I will go so far as to say a Federal, holiday.

As I said, something like this will not be perfect, and there is no one single objective standard to apply.

This is no more an establishment of religion than if a Buddhist statue were to be temporarily, or even permanently, displayed on the grounds of the Washington monument....

A permanent installation of a statute of the Buddha is, without question, an "establishment of a state religion." It doesn't matter if it seems to you that there are so few Buddhists, with so little influence in society. It is still sending a message that "the state endorses Buddhism."

If a group is conducting a Buddhist ritual on the Mall, and temporarily set up a statue of the Buddha, that's fine. They are acting as individuals, and using a public space, without any hint of endorsement from the government. No one is putting a halt to that kind of activity.

There should be no reason, for instance, for people to be fearful of expressing their faith openly in school settings.

If you're talking about a group of students who meet before classes and pray, then (afaik) that's perfectly legitimate.

If the school sets aside class time and says "you have the option to pray for the next 5 minutes," then that's an establishment of religion, and should be (and is) barred.

In classrooms students should not be discouraged from putting forth their own opinions about whether, as our textbooks say, man is related to, descended from and/or derives from other species...

If by "discouraged" you mean "allowed to speak their opinions," yes. However, the official science curriculum should not be teaching students that Adam was made by God out of dust, nor should a student be exempted from learning about evolution if they attend a public school.

especially when this cannot and, under rigorous scientific method, is not even close to being near proven as fact.

Evolution is a fact. There is abundant scientific evidence to support it. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that human beings evolved from earlier primates, and that we are still evolving. It is as certain as "heating water to 100º C will turn the water into steam." Your own ignorance on this matter is really not helping your case.

government does not have the right to suppress what individuals really think.

Government also is not, and should not be, empowered to teach people supernatural beliefs in a science class.

I would agree that no religion should be proselytized, but defense of faith should specifically be allowed.

...and that "defense of faith" is, again, an act of establishing a religion. Thus, it's out.

And specifically, why cannot/should not the Ten Commandments be displayed...

Because that's an establishment of religion. That should be screamingly obvious.

I mean, seriously, have you not read them lately? Do you really not remember that #1 is “You shall have no other gods before me" ?

many of our laws are indirectly based on this....

Oh? Is it illegal to make a graven image of God? No? Are we criminalizing adultery again? Will I be arrested for blasphemy? Is coveting a misdemeanor or a felony?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Yes, there is, and clearly so. Setting up the nativity scene qualifies as an "establishment of a state religion."

Well, since you put it that way, of course you are bound to be right, I mean, I do not think I have ever heard an argument put forward so well. Such a succinct phrasing, so lacking in logic, lacking in proof and evidence and yes the perfect argument. I think I will use it in the future. So, all one has to say is, "yes, there is, and clearly so." Does it also work for the negative, for instance, "No, there is not, clearly not." That is all that is necessary? Wow, thanks…I can win all the debates with that phrasing, huh?

As I said, something like this will not be perfect, and there is no one single objective standard to apply.

Yes, there is, and clearly so. Yes, the phrase is working, thanks again.

A permanent installation of a statute of the Buddha is, without question, an "establishment of a state religion." It doesn't matter if it seems to you that there are so few Buddhists, with so little influence in society. It is still sending a message that "the state endorses Buddhism."

No, it clearly is not establishing a National Church by having a permanent statue of a Buddha...sorry, I have never seen such poor argumentation seemingly done seriously. If you do not know what the establishment of religion means, read my other posts on this thread. Or look it up in the dictionary, either way putting up a statue does not automatically make Buddhism our national faith…what if someone put up a large permanent cross at the Lincoln Memorial…then we have competing National Churches? [Not advocating it, just posing the question to show the illogic of your position.] If you do not know what an establishment of religion means, I might understand ignorance on the matter…either educate yourself or give up arguing positions from such obliviousness.

If a group is conducting a Buddhist ritual on the Mall, and temporarily set up a statue of the Buddha, that's fine. They are acting as individuals, and using a public space, without any hint of endorsement from the government. No one is putting a halt to that kind of activity.

No, there is not, clearly not...and yes, clearly so. Wow, I guess I can go both ways probably…that works, too right? I win!!!

Such silliness.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

If the school sets aside class time and says "you have the option to pray for the next 5 minutes," then that's an establishment of religion, and should be (and is) barred.

Why don’t you explain to us your logic on that? If they all happen to be praying to different gods, how would that be an establishment of religion?

If by "discouraged" you mean "allowed to speak their opinions," yes. However, the official science curriculum should not be teaching students that Adam was made by God out of dust, nor should a student be exempted from learning about evolution if they attend a public school.

No, and it should not be teaching that we came from some primordial brew, either. Which is just as, if not more so, farfetched as a God making man from dust.

Evolution is a fact. There is abundant scientific evidence to support it. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that human beings evolved from earlier primates, and that we are still evolving. It is as certain as "heating water to 100º C will turn the water into steam." Your own ignorance on this matter is really not helping your case.

Slow change over time is a fact, provable through the scientific method. To make you second statement, that there is “absolutely no doubt whatsoever that human beings evolved from earlier primates, and that we are still evolving” is a position beyond the pale uninformed, bordering on the unconscious. But since you say it is as solid a fact of the temperature for boiling water…give me the proof. Which primate did we, or at least you, evolve from, beyond shadow of a doubt? Should be easy enough. I can boil water on my stove, so you should have readily available proofs on this statement.
Your own almost absolute ignorance on this and related matters is really not helping your case. At all. Your positions are completely laughable and makes me wonder many things.

Government also is not, and should not be, empowered to teach people supernatural beliefs in a science class.

Nor should it be empowered to push on our kids some far fetched fantasy from the left. Teach only real science in science class.

...and that "defense of faith" is, again, an act of establishing a religion. Thus, it's out.

Defense of faith is an establishment of religion, what if you had 25 students all of different faiths, they would be establishing one church for all the rest of us? Garbage.

Because that's an establishment of religion. That should be screamingly obvious.

What is screamingly obvious is you have no idea what is meant by an establishment of religion.

I mean, seriously, have you not read them lately? Do you really not remember that #1 is “You shall have no other gods before me" ?

I am guessing if your god is Darwin, that would be true then, huh?

Oh? Is it illegal to make a graven image of God? No? Are we criminalizing adultery again? Will I be arrested for blasphemy? Is coveting a misdemeanor or a felony?

Dunno, not my religion… so if you were to see that, you would automatically believe it and feel that is now your belief, that is the national belief?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

i found his easy to understand. Whats your problem? Was that the only argument that you could muster?

First of all, I am sure you must be used to such ramblings and illogic, I have read your positions. My problem, I am more used to people making some sort of coherent statement.

And, if you found that so easy to understand, can you not understand that despite the senseless dribble presented, I still answered the question? Seems if you can understand the meandering statements you should at least be able to perceive that...right? Right.

:yt

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I do not believe that you have a clue what I am talking about. SO therefor im not sure that I can provide evidence for something that you are talking about.

But back to what I was actually talking about, you should read the federalist papers. All the evidence needed to show that out system of Government isnt a majority rule is there (on a side note it also shows that we are not a minority rule either).


Since it is obvious that you are not going to make the effort I will do it for you.


The Federalist #10

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.


if you read this and still think that the country is ran by the majority then my friend you are not a American.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

PUBLIUS

Federalist 10 was in advocation of the Constitution which calls for a representative democracy, a republic, which will help allay the problem of factions. Factions are naturally occurring human organisms, some large enough to be known as a party. Madison felt the best way to handle that is to get away from a direct democracy, which has more problems with faction, and filter all this through representatives who are apt to look more towards the true public good.

I have the Federalist Papers in paperback form, have it on my Kindle and have these papers in audible book form...so do not presume to know any more than you have proven in this area, as well as what Fed #10 means. I also have the Anti-Federalist Papers and several books on the Ratification of the Constitution.

Maybe if you take the time to read it a bit more closely.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Why art Christians so stupid that they cannot just pray without having to talk out loud? Seriously praying is supposed to be personal between god and the person praying,
hell you dont even need to open your mouth. You dont need to move your lips to read or need to read out loud either.


Out of respect when praying one needs to look at where they are. In a church its open season. In your home its open season. Anywhere where your praying out loud wont disturb other people its open season. Where praying out load will disturb people put a cork in it. But rest assured that there isnt anywhere in this country that you cannot pray. Even in public schools. You can also read religious books anywhere you want as well. But in public schools you have to do it at the appropriate time, not while the student is supposed to be working.

Christians just keep listening to their religious leaders who drum up BS untruths and it doesnt make their religion look any good.

I am not a Christian, but that is just plain out and out offensive post. Why don't people learn how to control their various religious bigotry?

For one thing, many people of faith, whichever faith, feel strength when praying with others, how others choose to pray is not under your jurisdiction, fellow citizen. Why do we pledge alliegance out loud and together? What you advocate is silly.

What about at an event where most are of the same mind, same or similar faith [ Christian denominations are not the same, but they have faith, a common belief in a loving god for instance ], should those, in the minority, be able to put the cork in everyone else's bottle?

Atheists and the anti-religious zealots are the ones making the big stink, making the big deal about it...nobody should even have a problem, I mean, get a life.